Political Memes

Circular reasoning

It's probably the last point of disagreement we have, so it's quite sad to start with it. Anyway, though it was badly presented before, i think i'm still legitimate to maintain my circular reasoning claim, even or especially after your explanation.

I agree that throughout our discussion, you made those two separate points.

1. D->S : Domination of states implies Stability of states.
2. S->N : Stability of states implies Necessity of states. (or, as you put it, necessity of states because of advantages of states).

What's missing here, and that i have confused with Necessity of states (N) previously, is the People desire for stability (P), alognside with the assumption that what what people desire is necessary. Effectively, Stability does not imply necessity, it needs something else that says "X is necessary" and "X needs stability". I assume this X to be what the people desires, from the part We live in a world where people want stability and order. This is the proposition that makes the thing circular : People desire for stability (P) both needs to imply Domination (D) (as in We live in a world where people want stability and order.), and to be implied by D (as in stability [...] is what humanity favors given our history). D->P gives the strength of D to P, but for that it needs P->S->D to show the Domination is linked with people desires and not just another variable.

It is legitimate to make such a move, since there is a need to put a cause for domination of states, because if it was a bad one (like states are a predatory and self-perpetuating form of organization), then the consequences of it would inherit this bad foundation. My point is that the cause for domination that you can give are also deduced from this domination.

Pride

Not sure we actually are on the exact same page, but anyway we would be close enough. Thanks for expressing your content, it is shared.

Practice/Theory

To be fair, my point on practice/theory has been dismissed by your further comments, and only applies to what you said before. I should have pointed it out, my bad on this point too. Though i disagree with your linking of anarchists problems of coordination/communication and anarchist theory, i admit it is not unfounded and is a proper example of linking theory and practice properly. It was missing before, i think you'll convene of this. Therefore, i think we can also say we're on the same page now on this point too !

Strawmanning

I agree with most of your paragraph, especially on the misunderstanding rather than malice. The bad faith accusation i have made were pointing out a (alleged) lack of will to understand properly rather than a will to misrepresent. I have made similar errors, like my summarization, though if i recall correctly, it was not that wrong (some errors were minor, bigger errors like "current states" instead of "states in general" were a formulation error that didn't matter much for argumentation). I apologize for this one along others : if it's something you'd like to do, i'd be glad to have a list of the points i strawmaned. I'll try to refrain myself for discussing if they are strwman or not, i'd just like to see what i misunderstood.

History

1. This is an excellent summary of your point. I think it kinda misses mine, which was the cause/consequences rather than the responsability. When confronted about fascists destroying anarchists, the causation is for you that anarchists lack the mechanisms to resist, and is for me that states structures are dangerous. Both can be (and probably are) true at the same time, the question is on which to put the emphasis., and that's where we differ.

I also disagree on the association of actual problems in Spain with necessary flaws in theory, reporting them on the practical difficulties that were to face (urgency of the situation, lack of international support, chaos inherited from the failed coup d'état, etc.). That said, i concede that your deduction from the Spanish case of anarchist flaws remains legitimate and well-founded.

2. On the Red Terror, i thank you for bringing this to my knowledge, i did not know the detail of it. Your summary is very good, and i would just add that from what i just learned, it seems that those violences existed on the Nationalist side too, directed at reds, and that the Red Terror on the Republican side ultimately was turned against anarchist and non-stalinist themselves. We both agree that anarchists committed and failed to prevent atrocities.

3. I think we both agree that if Revolutionary Ukraine was a state, it would be the form of state closest to anarchy, and if it was anarchy, it would be the form of anarchy closest to state. The nitpicking would be about whether or not it crossed the line. I support that it did, and my arguments are that i do not have example of organizations defined as state with a military based on volunteering, election of officers and autodiscipline, and with a decision system based on federalism and immediate recall of mandatees. But in the end it really is nitpicking, and if we agree on the first part, it's more than okay i think.

4. Thanks for expressing the concession. I note and accept your stance that the low level of stability of anarchists experiments is not enough for you.